*Please Note:my sources will be linked in their
corresponding word or group of words. If there is a direct quote, I will not use the block quote format but will instead link the source, indent, and put normal quotes around the source quotes. IntroductionFirst, let me thank my
opponent for the opportunity to debate them on this important topic!

…since I am arguing the Pro
side I thought I would lay down some guidelines…

The Resolution:

“Resolved: The U.S. Government should defund
sanctuary cities.”

Definitions & Clarifications:Let’s break down the resolution statement and clarify some
terms.

I’m assuming
my opponent is referring to the US Government as a whole, which would include
all three branches, the Legislative, the Judicial, and the Executive. For purposes of this debate, any or all of
them could be part of the defunding process. If need be I will elaborate further in the arguments.

Should - "used in auxiliary function to express
obligation, propriety, or expediency"

“Should” can be a somewhat subjective term expressing
a personal opinion. It’s my goal in this
debate to express my opinions supporting the Resolution, which hopefully will
persuade the voters

For purposes of this debate topic, I felt it necessary to insert "or withhold" to the definition. The reason why I inserted "or withhold" is that the whole debate and narrative of the U.S. Government defunding sanctuary cities not only includes the defunding of specific federal funds but also the withholding of certain federal grants. If need be I will elaborate further in the arguments.

Sanctuary City- "a city in which the local government and police protect
undocumented immigrants and refugees from deportation by federal authorities."

Undocumented Immigrant - "The term ‘undocumented immigrant’ refers to
foreign nationals residing in the U.S. without legal immigration status. It
includes persons who entered the U.S. without inspection and proper permission
from the U.S. Government and those who entered with a legal visa that is no
longer valid. Undocumented immigrants are also known as unauthorized or illegal
immigrants.

Illegal Alien - See Undocumented Immigrant.

Illegal Immigrant - See Undocumented Immigrant.

Interpreting the Resolution:

Since I am arguing the pro side I will attempt to prove that the U.S. Government should defund sanctuary cities. In order to do this, I will need to provide enough convincing proof through facts and common sense that sanctuary cities should be defunded by the U.S. Government. If I can prove this then I should win the debate. Conversely, my opponent should win if they can show enough convincing proof that sanctuary cities should not be defunded by the U.S. Government.

Pros First Argument

The defunding of sanctuary cities has been in the media narrative over the past 3 years. This topic is obviously a political hot button issue. It is my goal to cut through all the political biases and look at the defunding of sanctuary cities in an unbiased and neutral way. With that being said, I will attempt to prove that the U.S, Government should defund sanctuary cities on three fronts...

Sanctuary cities are breaking the law

Sanctuary cities are not protecting their citizens.

Sanctuary cities can be a refuge for foriegn born terrorist.

The U.S Government is legally obliged to defund sanctuary cities.

1, Sanctuary cities are breaking the law

8 U.S. Code§ 1373. - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

(a)In general..."Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual."

Comment: Sanctuary Cities are in violation of this statute of the U.S. Code an are thereby breaking the law

Harboring Undocumented Immigrants

From the definition of undocumented immigrants above, "the term ‘undocumented immigrant’ refers to
foreign nationals residing in the U.S. without legal immigration status."

Comment: Sanctuary cities are breaking the law by harboring immigrants that do not have legal immigration status

This is the bill that makes California, in essence, a sanctuary state.

Even the opening paragraph admits that they are openly violating federal law

"Existing law provides that when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters.

This bill would repeal those provisions.

Existing law provides that whenever an individual who is a victim of or witness to a hate crime, or who otherwise can give evidence in a hate crime investigation, is not charged with or convicted of committing any crime under state law, a peace officer may not detain the individual exclusively for any actual or suspected immigration violation or report or turn the individual over to federal immigration authorities.

This bill would, among other things and subject to exceptions, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security departments, from using money or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes"

"(a) Except for such reasonable time as is necessary to conduct the investigation specified in subsection (c) of this section, no
agency or agent shall: (1) arrest, detain or continue to detain a person solely on the belief that the person is not present legally in the United States, or
that the person has committed a civil immigration violation;
(2) arrest, detain, or continue to detain a person based on an administrative warrant entered into the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's National Crime Information Center database, or successor or similar database maintained by the United States, when
the administrative warrant is based solely on a violation of a civil immigration law; or
(3) detain, or continue to detain, a person based upon an immigration detainer, when such immigration detainer is based solely on
a violation of a civil immigration law."

"(b) (1) Unless an agency or agent is acting pursuant to a legitimate law enforcement purpose that is unrelated to the enforcement
of a civil immigration law, no agency or agent shall:
(A) permit ICE agents access to a person being detained by, or in the custody of, the agency or agent;
(B) permit ICE agents use of agency facilities for investigative interviews or other investigative purpose; or
(C) while on duty, expend their time responding to ICE inquiries or communicating with ICE regarding a person's custody
status or release date."

(e) Law enforcement officials shall not arrest or detain an individual, or provide any individual's personal information to a federal
immigration officer, on the basis of an administrative warrant, prior deportation order, or other civil immigration document based solely
on alleged violations of the civil provisions of immigration laws.

"In the criminal investigation and arrest arena, CVPD officer contacts with individuals must be based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Officers may arrest individuals only if they have probable cause to believe the individual has committed a crime. CVPD officer contacts and arrests may not be based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic orimmigration status. These are requirements of both the U.S. Constitution and CVPD Policy 428. Further, per CVPD policy, no inquiries are made regarding any suspect’s immigration status either pre or post arrest."

Comment: All of these policies restrict local law enforcement from arresting and detaining a civilian based on immigration status. Some even go as far as restricting local law enforcement from communication with federal agents (e.g.ICE agents)! These policies allow undocumented immigrants with previous crimes that have been deported to slip back into America unnoticed thanks to Sanctuary Cities!

Not protecting them against Undocumented immigrants that commit violent crimes.

"In early May, Ismael Huazo-Jardinez, a Mexican national, crashed his car into a trailer home in Sutter County, California killing a ten-year-old boy and his parents. Huazo-Jardinez, who had been deported twice before, was drunk when the crash occurred. He was indicted by a federal grand jury in June on two counts of being in possession of a firearm while in the U.S. illegally. He also faces state crimes associated with the crash. (Fox News, June 14, 2019)."

"On April 2, Miguel Martinez was arrested in Louisiana on 100 counts of possession of pornography of children under the age of 13, one count of production of child pornography, and one count of sexual battery of a child under the age of 13. Martinez, an illegal alien, was deported in 2005 and remains a registered sex offender in California, a sanctuary state."

Napa County Sheriff’s Deputy Riley Jarecki narrowly avoided death at the hands of Javier Hernandez Morales, a 48-year-old illegal alien from Mexico. Morales, who was killed in a shootout with the police officer, had a long criminal history and had been deported multiple times. In addition, ICE had issued detainers for Morales in 2014, 2015, and 2016, but none were honored by the local California jail staff.

Kate Steinle was shot by José Inez García Zárate. An illegal alien, on July 1, 2015 in San Francisco, CA.

José Inez García Zárate, "an illegal immigrant who was deported from the U.S. a total of five times, most recently in 2009. He was on probation n Texas at the time of the [Steinle] shooting. He had seven felony convictions.

Comment: every one of the aforementioned crimes, some in sanctuary cities, would not have happened if the federal immigration laws had been enforced. Sanctuary cities are not protecting their citizens.

"[Mark] Metcalf [in his book, Built to fail: Deception and disorder in America’s immigration courts ] found that between 1993 and 2004, every one of the 94 foreign-born persons involved in actual attacks on U.S. soil had committed an immigration law violation: 34 made a false statement to enter the United States, 18 of the 94 entered on student visas, another four were approved to study in the United States, 17 had improper travel documents, and 13 overstayed their visas. Immigration courts are unable to enforce removal decisions; the only agency that can arrest, detain, and remove illegal immigrants is the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ICE was formed after passage of the Homeland Security Act in 2003 to provide enforcement of immigration laws, to investigate illegal trafficking of people and goods, and to prevent terrorism."

Comment: Sanctuary cities make it easier for foriegn born terrorist to seek refuge on American soil.

4. The U.S Government is legally obligated to defund sanctuary cities.

"The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled in favor of the Trump administration's efforts to prioritize federal dollars for local policing to towns and cities that complied with certain immigration policies. The ruling, a split 2-1 decision, said the Department of Justice (DOJ) was within its rights to withhold Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants from sanctuary cities and states over their refusal to work with federal immigration enforcement authorities and instead prioritize agencies that focused on unauthorized immigration and agreed to give Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) access to jail records and immigrants in custody.

Comment: According to the Take Care Clause and the legal victory on 7/12/2019 the U.S. Government has the power and obligation to defund Sanctuary cities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I want to restate that sanctuary cities are breaking the law, are not protecting their citizens, and can be a refuge for foriegn born terrorist The U.S Government should defund sanctuary cities for the reasons just stated and because they have the legal power and the moral obligation to defund sanctuary cities. Vote Pro!

Round 2

Published:
07.23.19 07:43AM

Framework

Utilitarianism is the principle by which we determine what
is morally right by the amount of “good” is produced and the amount of “bad” is
diminished (1). The principle asks both debaters to consider the utility we are
providing people through a given policy. We are tasked with using this concept
to weigh each side of the debate because of policy-maker’s duty to the people. The
constitution grants significant leeway to Congress in policymaking. It suggests
that policy makers are obligated to promote the general welfare of the people
(2). While not at all specific, it does suggest that forming a policy, such as
one that will defund sanctuary cities, there needs to be special consideration
for the citizens of the US. In addition, illegal immigrants are also granted
some rights per constitutional precedent (13). They are offered at least some
human dignity as well. We aren’t legally allowed to kill, maim, or sexually
assault illegal immigrants regardless of their status. The reason for this is
simple. Regardless of national origins, the US still feels obligated to protect
peoples’ rights as humans. As a country, the US signed onto the UN Declaration
of Human Rights which in the first article proclaims the following:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and
rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one
another in a spirit of brotherhood” (16).

Clearly, the US being the main actor in the resolution,
needs to see tangible benefits to defunding sanctuary cities as well as not
completely dehumanize illegal immigrants for Pro to win. Pro’s job is to
explain how both principles are upheld, while it is Con’s burden to show how
both cannot be upheld in the Pro world.

C1: Suspended Funding
Harms Citizens

Despite being a popular proposal to crack down on illegal
immigration by forcing states to cede to immigration authorities, there has
been little to no focus on what the funding does. Forbes quantifies that the
total federal funding given to sanctuary cities is roughly $27 billion (3). The
$27 billion funded fire departments, housing, police departments, and schools
(3). To see what affect this would have in a single city, CNN published an
article detailing exactly what would be affected in 5 sanctuary cities. In NYC,
the suspension of federal funds could result in an ever-growing testing backlog
of over 50,000 DNA evidence samples in their crime lab (4). Chicago’s fund of
over $100 million to fight homelessness and build low-income housing would be
put in jeopardy in the Pro world too (4). Finally, 28% of Seattle’s Human
Services Department would be slashed as well (4). Of note is the last item on
the list, since the Human Services Department has invested over $70 million
dollars in combating homelessness (5). A budget contraction would devastate the
homeless in the already destitute county.

Given the slate of blue states and localities that have
enacted these policies, an action to cede their sanctuary city status to
receive funding would take time. Cities such as Chicago have even taken the
federal government to task after threats were made against non-compliant states
and won (6). There is no way to know which municipalities are going to engage
in a prolonged legal battle and which ones are going to immediately reverse
their sanctuary city status. Thus, millions of people could be affected by the
budget cuts for a long period of time. If the goal of the resolution is to
intimidate localities into relinquish their sanctuary city status, then realize
that the people who are most likely going to suffer from the Pro world will not
be city officials. It would be homeless people without emergency shelters,
low-income people unable to find accommodations, and the dwindling remains of
the education system. Even if you find the actions of state officials to be
abhorrent in hampering federal efforts to deport illegal immigrants, Pro’s
position would hurt everyone living in the municipalities affected. If the
government’s duty is to guarantee the protection and general welfare of the
public, then taking blatant actions to harm entire cities based off the actions
of a few is a guaranteed vote for Con. We are maximizing harm by suspending
funds because municipalities would be forced to discontinue certain services previously
given to the people. Services such as homelessness rehabilitation protects
people by offering housing and helping vulnerable people find jobs. DNA labs
allow law enforcement to apprehend criminals and keep cities safer. Overall,
defunding overburdens states.

C2: Overburdened
Immigration System

Eventually, in Pro’s world, municipalities will reverse
their sanctuary city policies. When this happens, deportation will spike. At
the time of writing this, over 900,000 cases are pending related to immigration
charges; which explains why detainees wait over 700 days on average for their
cases to be heard according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse
at Syracuse University (7). The Pew Research Center finds that Illegal
immigrants tend to congregate in major municipalities such as Los Angeles,
Seattle, Philadelphia, and NYC, all of which are sanctuary cities, (or in the
case of California, a sanctuary state) (8). Suddenly, localities would be
compelled to deport thousands if not millions of illegal immigrants who have
gathered in these safe havens. As a result, American taxpayers are forced to
foot the bill of the ballooning detention budget. The National Immigration
Forum estimates that taxpayers pay roughly $8 million per day on immigration detention
(9). This price will increase substantially when millions more are detained.
More taxpayer dollars would be funneled into programs that don’t directly
benefit citizens. Either taxes increase, or budgets are reallocated to
prioritize ICE detainment, forcing healthcare, education, and welfare
departments to get a smaller slice of the budget pie.

In addition, those with legal claim to live in the US will
not have their cases heard. It should come as no surprise that those detained
as illegal immigrants face overwhelming barriers in receiving legal defense. The
American Immigration Council in September of 2016 reports that only 37% of
detainees ever receive legal defense, while those that do double their chances
of receiving immigration relief (10). Detention centers present a major hurdle
in finding legal aid due to where they are in relation to the nearest legal
aid. The LA Times reports that nearly a third of all detained immigrants are
held in detention centers that are over 100 miles away from government-listed
legal aid, while the average distance between the legal aid and detention
centers was 56 miles (11). The risks of erroneous verdicts will increase under
the Pro plan because legal resources for detainees are stretched thin. Recent
evidence gathered by the LA Times concluded that nearly 1,500 US citizens have
been detained by ICE based off incomplete governmental records, bad data, and
lax investigations (12). Immigration attorney and ex-ICE prosecutor John Gihon furthers
this, explaining that immigration courts routinely count hearsay as admissible
evidence, and documents submitted to the court don’t have to be authorized (13).
In other words, there is ample evidence suggesting that legal immigrants and US
citizens would suffer in addition to aliens in the event of more deportations
because resources are stretched too thin to find appropriate defense, and
trials are unfair to the accused in comparison to other courts in the US. In
the event of mass trials, such as the one’s that took place during Operation
Streamline in which dozens are tried at the same time at a rapid pace, it would
be easier for legal immigrants to fall through the cracks and end up
unnecessarily deported (17).

C3: Harms the Economy

Sanctuary cities benefit city inhabitants through increased
demand, which creates new jobs and bolsters business growth. The National
Bureau of Economic Research used economic modeling to determine that illegal
immigrants contribute to 3% of private-sector GDP annually (14). The effects
were magnified in California, where illegal immigrants account for 7% of
private-sector GDP annually (14). There are 2 identifiable causes of this
concentrated economic prowess. One, California has more illegal immigrants.
Two, and most importantly, the same NBER paper estimated that legalization
could increase economic contribution from illegal immigrants to 3.6% of the
GDP, or a 20% increase in worker productivity (14). While not providing direct
amnesty to the illegal population, the effects of sanctuary cities inoculate
the illegal immigrant population from ICE and federal law enforcement. In
effect, they are partially “legalized” in California. Removing the large illegal
immigrant population would prove ruinous for sanctuary cities. The New American
Economy found that if only 10% of the illegal population were removed from
Colorado, then firms in construction, entertainment, and hospitality would lose
a bulk of their employees, forcing drastic cuts and additional lay-offs to
accommodate practically all their illegal-immigrant workers from leaving.
Nearly 7,000 US citizen jobs would disappear, in addition to over $600 million
dollars in lost wages attributed to deportation (15). In total, Colorado’s GDP
would contract by $1.1 billion dollars in the event of only 10% of the illegal
population leaving (15).

Utilitarianism is the principle by which we determine what is morally right by the amount of “good” is produced and the amount of “bad” is diminished (1). The principle asks both debaters to consider the utility we are providing people through a given policy. We are tasked with using this concept to weigh each side of the debate because of policy-maker’s duty to the people. The constitution grants significant leeway to Congress in policymaking. It suggests that policy makers are obligated to promote the general welfare of the people (2). While not at all specific, it does suggest that forming a policy, such as one that will defund sanctuary cities, there needs to be special consideration for the citizens of the US. In addition, illegal immigrants are also granted some rights per constitutional precedent (13). They are offered at least some human dignity as well. We aren’t legally allowed to kill, maim, or sexually assault illegal immigrants regardless of their status. The reason for this is simple. Regardless of national origins, the US still feels obligated to protect peoples’ rights as humans.

I don't dispute this, but I would add that illegal immigrants are not afforded the full rights under the Constitution, which are rights derived by and for the Citizenry (i.e "We the People of the United States").

As a country, the US signed onto the UN Declaration of Human Rights which in the first article proclaims the following:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” (16).

In theory, I agree with this, but pragmatically speaking, this is not true of human beings born under a communist or totalitarian regime.

Clearly, the US being the main actor in the resolution, needs to see tangible benefits to defunding sanctuary cities as well as not completely dehumanize illegal immigrants for Pro to win. Pro’s job is to explain how both principles are upheld, while it is Con’s burden to show how both cannot be upheld in the Pro world.

My opponent is attempting to frame this debate and though I do not disagree with the spirit of the statement I take issue with some key terms. The terms are...

Dictionary.com has 4 definitions for "Tangible" the closest to my opponent's use is number 2, "real or actual, rather than imaginary or visionary:"

My only concern with Tangible is that it does not apply to reasoned hypotheticals. This would be a problem for me since some of my arguments deal with a "What If." Since the defunding of sanctuary cities have not been realized, any benefits I sate would not be tangible.

"completely dehumanize illegal immigrants"

My opponent is asking me to put forth arguments that prove that defunding sanctuary cities will not completely dehumanize illegal immigrants. I find this an undue burden. Again I am dealing mostly with hypotheticals based on reason and facts, so it would be almost impossible for me to prove that all illegal immigrants would not be dehumanized. Furthermore, what does "dehumanize" even mean in this statement and what extent would it be applied?

To finalize my comments to my opponent's Framework statement...

I would agree to "tangible or non-tangible"

Again, I do not believe I can prove the "completely dehumanize illegal immigrants" clause as stated.

Perhaps it would be best if my opponent and I could just make our arguments and rebuttals free of explicit constraints and let the voters decide who wins the debate.

"a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien)."

Despite being a popular proposal to crack down on illegal immigration by forcing states to cede to immigration authorities, there has been little to no focus on what the funding does. Forbes quantifies that the total federal funding given to sanctuary cities is roughly $27 billion (3). The $27 billion funded fire departments, housing, police departments, and schools (3). To see what affect this would have in a single city, CNN published an article detailing exactly what would be affected in 5 sanctuary cities. In NYC, the suspension of federal funds could result in an ever-growing testing backlog of over 50,000 DNA evidence samples in their crime lab (4).

I would ask my kind opponent to show me a source where the U.S. Government will suspend all federal funds ($27 billion) to all sanctuary cities?

Chicago’s fund of over $100 million to fight homelessness and build low-income housing would be put in jeopardy in the Pro world too (4). Finally, 28% of Seattle’s Human Services Department would be slashed as well (4). Of note is the last item on the list, since the Human Services Department has invested over $70 million dollars in combating homelessness (5). A budget contraction would devastate the homeless in the already destitute county.

I would ask my kind opponent to show me a source that states the U.S. Government will defund 28% of Seattle's Human Services Department?

Given the slate of blue states and localities that have enacted these policies, an action to cede their sanctuary city status to receive funding would take time.

I'm not sure what the point is to this sentence. Sanctuary cities are currently receiving funds? Maybe I misread?

Cities such as Chicago have even taken the federal government to task after threats were made against non-compliant states and won (6). There is no way to know which municipalities are going to engage in a prolonged legal battle and which ones are going to immediately reverse their sanctuary city status. Thus, millions of people could be affected by the budget cuts for a long period of time.

"budget cuts" - Does my opponent have proof for this or is this just conjecture?

"long period of time" - Abstract, no proof. Dear opponent, kindly please show proof of how long a "long period of time" is?

If the goal of the resolution is to intimidate localities into relinquish their sanctuary city status, then realize that the people who are most likely going to suffer from the Pro world will not be city officials. It would be homeless people without emergency shelters, low-income people unable to find accommodations, and the dwindling remains of the education system. Even if you find the actions of state officials to be abhorrent in hampering federal efforts to deport illegal immigrants, Pro’s position would hurt everyone living in the municipalities affected.

"Everyone" This is an assumption that is from left field. I would appreciate my opponent showing me proof when such an outlandish statement is made!

If the government’s duty is to guarantee the protection and general welfare of the public, then taking blatant actions to harm entire cities based off the actions of a few is a guaranteed vote for Con.

"blatant actions to harm entire cities" This is an outrageous statement! What source does my opponent have for this statement? There is no proof of this! Therefore this is a guaranteed vote for Pro!

We are maximizing harm

"maximizing harm" - Again with the outrageous statements from my opponent! I would ask my opponent what proof does he have that the U.S. Government is "maximizing harm?"

by suspending funds because municipalities would be forced to discontinue certain services previously given to the people. Services such as homelessness rehabilitation protects people by offering housing and helping vulnerable people find jobs. DNA labs allow law enforcement to apprehend criminals and keep cities safer. Overall, defunding overburdens states.

To finalize my comments to my opponent's C1 argument...

Aside from source "6," I have not seen my opponent specify a federal fund that the U.S. Government has attempted to defund. Yet my opponent makes a broad brush argument that defunding of all federal funds of sanctuary cities would harm Citizens. I would ask my opponent to cite a source that shows that all federal funding will be defunded? Source "6" speaks of a "public safety grant;" this is certainly not all federal funds.

In my own research, I have not come across anywhere where the U.S. Government is attempting to defund every federal fund from sanctuary cities. If my opponent can show me concrete proof that the U.S. Government has attempted to defund all federal funds from all sanctuary cities, I will concede this debate. The proof is not there. So then why is my opponent citing the full amount of federal funding to sanctuary cities as if the U.S. Government is defunding all federal funds?

I would appreciate if my opponent would stop using extreme language that is just conjecture and cannot be proven with facts. (e.g. "maximizing harm', "blatant actions to harm entire cities", "hurt everyone")

C2: Overburdened Immigration System

Eventually, in Pro’s world, municipalities will reverse their sanctuary city policies. When this happens, deportation will spike. At the time of writing this, over 900,000 cases are pending related to immigration charges; which explains why detainees wait over 700 days on average for their cases to be heard according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University (7). The Pew Research Center finds that Illegal immigrants tend to congregate in major municipalities such as Los Angeles, Seattle, Philadelphia, and NYC, all of which are sanctuary cities, (or in the case of California, a sanctuary state) (8). Suddenly, localities would be compelled to deport thousands if not millions of illegal immigrants who have gathered in these safe havens. As a result, American taxpayers are forced to foot the bill of the ballooning detention budget. The National Immigration Forum estimates that taxpayers pay roughly $8 million per day on immigration detention (9). This price will increase substantially when millions more are detained. More taxpayer dollars would be funneled into programs that don’t directly benefit citizens. Either taxes increase, or budgets are reallocated to prioritize ICE detainment, forcing healthcare, education, and welfare departments to get a smaller slice of the budget pie.

...

Pro(s) World - My opponent keeps bringing up this soulless netherworld called Pro's World. There is no such world. It is in the mind of my opponent where it is marinating and causing much harm to illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities, not mention the U.S. and all humanity. It doesn't exist.

I don't dispute that illegal immigration is in crisis mode. Heck, the whole legal immigration system in the U.S. could use massive reform, but that doesn't mean that you stop obeying the laws of the land because they may create an uncomfortable situation. Doing nothing is not the answer. Turning a blind eye just exacerbates the illegal immigration problem.

If I may use an analogy, if a person has cancer, you don't sit and wait a couple of months and let the cancer grow and get worse, you do everything you can to eradicate it. Will it cause some damage? Yes, most likely, but the end result is the cancer is removed and a life is saved. Okay maybe that's not the best analogy, but I'm trying to get my point across that the answer is not to do nothing at all.

Anyway, I think we are getting off-topic here, the resolution that I am trying to prove is that the U.S. Government should defund sanctuary cities. Will this come with problems and challenges, yes of course. It is not my responsibility as the Pro side of this debate to negate that fact but to use facts, reason, and common sense to prove that defunding is a possible avenue to address the problem of sanctuary cities.

C3: Harms the Economy

Sanctuary cities benefit city inhabitants through increased demand, which creates new jobs and bolsters business growth. The National Bureau of Economic Research used economic modeling to determine that illegal immigrants contribute to 3% of private-sector GDP annually (14). The effects were magnified in California, where illegal immigrants account for 7% of private-sector GDP annually (14). There are 2 identifiable causes of this concentrated economic prowess. One, California has more illegal immigrants. Two, and most importantly, the same NBER paper estimated that legalization could increase economic contribution from illegal immigrants to 3.6% of the GDP, or a 20% increase in worker productivity (14). While not providing direct amnesty to the illegal population, the effects of sanctuary cities inoculate the illegal immigrant population from ICE and federal law enforcement. In effect, they are partially “legalized” in California. Removing the large illegal immigrant population would prove ruinous for sanctuary cities. The New American Economy found that if only 10% of the illegal population were removed from Colorado, then firms in construction, entertainment, and hospitality would lose a bulk of their employees, forcing drastic cuts and additional lay-offs to accommodate practically all their illegal-immigrant workers from leaving. Nearly 7,000 US citizen jobs would disappear, in addition to over $600 million dollars in lost wages attributed to deportation (15). In total, Colorado’s GDP would contract by $1.1 billion dollars in the event of only 10% of the illegal population leaving (15).

I don't dispute that illegal immigrants do contribute to a city's economy, but at what cost? The following source claims

"Beginning in 1986, though, the worksite has become an enforcement site for immigration law, with employers required to check the work authorization of every worker they hire on pain of penalties and even criminal prosecution for hiring workers who do not present appropriate documents. "

Therefore companies that hire illegal immigrants are knowingly breaking the law. Remember that pesky Constitution that was mentioned in the Framework section? It has as part of its Preamble, "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility..." So by establishing Justice, it insures domestic tranquility.

Let me ask my opponent a question can an illegal immigrant have "domestic tranquility?" How about the employer that breaks the law by employing the illegal immigrant, do they have domestic tranquility?

You see the establishing of Laws is supposed to bring about the tranquility of the citizenry. Why? Because Justice, if established and enforced correctly, brings about Peace, reduces Chaos, brings about Order. Isn't this more desirable than to "contribute to 3% of private-sector GDP annually?"

Final Remarks

My opponent has brought up one main point in their constructive argument that I would like to highlight and address...And then I would like to add one final point.

The term "defund sanctuary cities"

It appears my opponent's whole argument depends on the assumption that federal funds will be defunded from sanctuary cities. This is an incorrect assumption. The U.S. Government cannot legally defund all federal funds from a sanctuary city.

So what is being defunded or what is the U.S. Government actively trying to defund from sanctuary cities? My opponent did bring up in their source number 6 an attempt by the U.S. Government to defund public safety grants from the City of Chicago an attempt they lost in court. Another attempt by the U.S. Government to defund sanctuary cities that they won in court was to defund (or withhold) Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), which I made in my opening argument

My point is "defund" is not all-inclusive of every federal fund. Therefore for my opponent to argue from that vantage point is not an accurate argument.

Rule of Law

The crux of my argument rests on the Rule of Law. In the term, "illegal immigrant" is the word, "illegal." A synonym for illegal is criminal so by being in this country illegally every undocumented immigrant is a criminal. And a sanctuary city that harbors a criminal is in itself a criminal act based on 18 U.S. Code§ 792. Therefore the U.S. Government should, at the minimum, have the power to defund sanctuary cities.

According to the guiding document of our country, the Constitution, the U.S. is a nation that has established Justice, a nation of Laws. The moment we turn a blind eye to lawbreakers and allow them to continue breaking the Law without retribution than we ceased to be the United States of America. Vote Pro!

Round 3

Published:
07.29.19 04:02AM

Onto my refutations.

Sanctuary cities and
the law

My opponent suggests that under federal law, (which
prohibits restrictions on communication between cities and immigration
authorities,) sanctuary cities are illegal.Maybe this is true, but so is the Pro position because it
forces localities to enforce federal requests from ICE.Restricting certain requests that ICE sends to localities is
a protection of fundamental liberties promised by the Bill of Rights. Multiple
SCOTUS precedents establish that illegal immigrants are due 4th and
5th amendment rights known as “due process” (2). It is noted in the
Plyer v. Doe majority opinion that:

“Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is
unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due
process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (2).

Due process necessitates that the government provides fair
legal procedures. However, ICE doesn’t employ fair procedures. They utilize
“detainers,” to prevent arrestees from leaving jail until ICE can detain them (3).
Two courts, one in Illinois and the other in LA, have both declared honoring
ICE requests to be unconstitutional (4) (10). This can be attributed to the
lack of “prompt judicial review” to verify that the probable cause standard was
applied correctly when the detainer was issued, (which is compulsory under the
4th amendment) (9). Additionally, the ACLU explains that detainers
are issued by individual ICE agents, (not judges,) and thus, don’t reach the
minimum standard by which someone can be held longer in detention (5). The ACLU
also mentioned that detainers don’t legally have to be honored by law
enforcement agencies due to the Galarza v. Szalczyk decision which stated that:

“…federal regulations “merely authorize the issuance of
detainers as requests” and do not “compel state or local LEAs to detain
suspected aliens subject to removal pending release to immigration officials”
(5).

By not recognizing detainers, cities and localities aren’t
restricting communication with ICE. Yet, cities that want to protect the due
process rights of aliens will be punished under the resolution due to my
opponent’s nebulous definition of “sanctuary city.” His definition would mean
that any city which “protect(s) undocumented immigrants and refugees from
deportation by federal authorities” would lose funding. Declining detainers
still “protects” illegal immigrants from deportation, qualifying certain
localities as sanctuary cities under my opponent’s definition.

The Texas Tribune reports in 2016 that from 2014 to 2016,
over 11,000 detainers were declined (6). The cities that declined these
requests would face funding cuts even if they complied with the law and shared information
with ICE.

Weigh the violation of people’s constitutional rights higher
than my opponent’s legal conjecture. Yes, certain cities might violate the law
by restricting communication between police agencies and immigration
authorities. However, not all cities break the communication law. Also, due
process rights are important to fight for. Without them, legal protections for
those suspected of illegal immigration withers, hurting natural born citizens
and illegal immigrants alike. Syracuse University’s Transactional Records
Access Clearinghouse documented over 800 cases of US citizens being issued
detainers (7). Pro’s proposal would require police agencies to honor the
requests regardless of veracity, potentially leading to US citizens being
deported. The Virginia Journal of Social Policy and Law in 2011 estimated that
since 2003, over 20,000 US citizens have been deported (8).

Crime

Most of his citations only include serious crimes being
committed by illegal immigrants with no mention of sanctuary cities protecting
them from punishment. Pro even mentions that only some of the crime he listed took place in sanctuary cities. This
point is in desperate need of a link stronger than a jumble of anecdotes
recounting admittedly tragic events.

Holistic analyses concluded that sanctuary cities were, on
average, safer than their non-sanctuary counterparts. Tom Wong, Professor at
the University of California wrote for the Center for American Progress and
found on average, controlling for population characteristics such as income,
sanctuary cities had 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties
(11). This can be attributed to increased crime-reporting because of the increased
trust between aliens and police. The Department of Urban Planning and Policy in
Chicago found that communities that increased police involvement in immigration
enforcement reduced legal and illegal immigrant’s desire to report crime. Out
of the 4 cities studied, (Phoenix, Los Angeles, Houston, and Chicago,) over 60%
of illegal immigrants reported that they were less likely to report crimes (12).
Notably, increased fear of deportation wasn’t confined to illegal immigrants.
Half of foreign-born immigrants and nearly 30% of US born Latinos reported
increased fear of contacting the police about crimes that were committed (12). Using
data from the National Crime Victimization Survey after the 1986 amnesty
provision passed in the US, researchers at the Institute of Labor Economics
found that the reporting rate of illegal immigrants was 11.2% (13). After
amnesty was passed, the reporting rate of recently legalized immigrants jumped
by about 20% (13). By reducing the threat of deportation, we can expect to see
similar results. Conversely, by punishing entities that declare sanctuary
status, we only put more people in danger. People who go unreported for their
misdeeds are not incentivized to stop committing crime, creating repeat
offenders.

Also, pro’s plan would suspend funding from sanctuary
cities, which includes federal funds that would help police agencies. While it’
hard to quantify what funding would be rescinded after the passage of the
resolution, Forbes reports that at least $21.5 billion dollars which funds schools,
police agencies, and firefighters would be classified as federal funding and
halted under my opponent’s plan (14). Training, hiring, and outfitting police
officers is expensive. There needs to be a system that prevents police agencies
from going belly up. Otherwise, crime increases dramatically. The Economic
Policy Institute in 2011 measured the impact of police lay-offs in New Jersey
cities and across the 5 cities studied in New Jersey, it was estimated that layoffs
would cause 34 more murders, 527 more robberies, and 9 more forcible rapes (15).

Terrorism

Data from the CATO Institute suggests that since 1975, a
mere 10 illegal immigrants have ever attempted to commit terror in the US and
were quickly foiled. In fact, most foreign-born terrorists arrived on tourist
visas or were lawful permanent residents (16). It is unclear how a sanctuary
status would prevent them from committing terror.

In fact, my opponent never explains how ICE could have detained
the people who came here with improper documentation, or who lied to receive
their legal immigration status. It is impossible to determine if ICE had the
proper authority to detain any of the foreign-born terrorists that my opponent
mentioned.

In any case, the process for becoming an immigrant in the US
is much different nowadays than the time period studied in his evidence, which
was from 1993 through 2004. Since 9/11, the US has bolstered security for all
visa types. The Bipartisan Policy Center notes that advance screenings which
compares biometric data from applicants with international databases,
pre-departure vetting, and even DHS officials stationed at ports of entry all
lend themselves to preventing terrorists from entering the country (17). The
comparison Pro made is insufficient in proving that aliens pose a terrorist
threat of any kind.

Legal Obligation

Pro cites two pieces of evidence to prove his point that the
US has a legal obligation to defund sanctuary cities. He cites a 10th circuit victory and the “take care” clause of the constitution.

The 10th circuit victory doesn’t prove that the
resolution should be passed, only that such an action wouldn’t violate the
constitution. It isn’t unconstitutional to stick gum under a desk. It could
land the vandalizer in hot water with police officers, but the constitution
never explicitly prevents someone from committing the deed. Additionally,
cross-apply both of my federal court-cases that deemed not honoring detainer
requests constitutional.

Now to defend my case.

Framework

My opponent suggests that constitutional protections for
illegal immigrants do not exist. This is patently false. Cross-apply my Plyer
v. Doe evidence which suggests that aliens have the right of due process.

He also takes issue with my use of the word “tangible” to describe
what Pro needs to demonstrate. I only ask that Pro demonstrate the real-world benefits
of defunding sanctuary cities.

Finally, he suggests that me asking him to show that his
position doesn’t dehumanize illegal immigrants is abusive. I am not requiring
that he provide defensive argumentation to address the humanitarian issues
associated with defunding sanctuary cities. However, considering the constitutional
precedents, it would be remiss to not consider the wellbeing of the illegal
immigrants who would undoubtedly be affected. Weigh these impacts in the
debate.

Suspending Funding
Harms Citizens

Pro tries to backtrack by alluding to the possibility that
not all funds would be suspended under the passage of the resolution. His definition
of “defund” offered at the beginning of his case would suggest otherwise. He
requires that funding not only be withdrawn, but that existing grants be
suspended, such as the COPS program which works with municipalities. His chance
to explain what kind of funding would be affected has long passed as it is now
the final round. Because I am restricted from responding further after this
round is completed, I implore the judges to punish any last-minute plans that
were not previously discussed by Pro in R1.

He also asks that I provide proof that all funds would be
ended. Since his position requires that all funds should be suspended, and
there was no previous plan-making that would only require some funds to be suspended,
it can be rationally assumed that Pro’s plan would restrict all funding.

My opponent wants more examples of harms of taking away
federal funds because I only mention 1 program. I mention that the funding aids
schools, the homeless, and law enforcement. Here are some more funds that would
be cut according to the CNN evidence I provided beforehand.

In Seattle: “The Transportation Department is due more than
$63 million in capital funds for maintenance, bridge replacements, seismic
retrofits, and bike and pedestrian path improvements.”

In Chicago: “Also in danger are $100 million to fight
homelessness and maintain affordable housing, $178 million for infrastructure,
and $861 million for the Chicago Public Schools.”

“Police could lose $9.6 million from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant.”

The evidence suggests that in sanctuary cities, everything
from infrastructure to education could be affected. This impacts everyone who
uses roads, goes to school, or is protected by the police. Hence: “everyone who
inhabits a sanctuary city is harmed” is an accurate statement. Also, whether a city flips to become a non-sanctuary city
depends largely on the city in question. For example, Chicago is prepared for lengthy
legal proceedings that could last months or years. In the meantime, cities
would face budget contractions.

Overburdened
Immigration System

Fine, for the rest of the post I won’t use “Pro’s world.”
Other than that, my opponent essentially drops this point. He offers a metaphor
comparing the affirmative position to chemotherapy to treat cancer. I disagree.
This resolution is akin to prescribing cigarettes to a patient with lung
cancer. If we want to talk about “fixing the immigration system,” (whatever that
means,) then we could argue other, more tenable positions. As it stands, he
never refuted my claims suggesting that legal citizens would be deported, the
inordinate cost of detention, or the lack of appropriate legal defense for
people detained. Extend these points.

Economic Benefits

This point boils down to another concession. Regardless of
whether an illegal immigrant has domestic tranquility, the people within sanctuary
cities would also lose jobs according to my 15th source in my constructive
if defunding occurs and cities rescind their sanctuary status.

Opponent’s final
remarks

I would like to reiterate
that my opponent never mentioned that some federal funds would still flow to sanctuary
cities until now. His definition provided at the beginning and lack of plan on
how the disbursement of funds would be handled means that it is too late to
consider this a valid point. Even if it was, what exactly wouldn’t be defunded?
He never mentions what should be defunded at all in the debate. If Pro wanted
to run a plan, he needed to have specified every aspect of what he intended to
do. Otherwise, the judge and I will wonder exactly what would happen with sanctuary
city funding. Also, if there are no specifics as to what would be defunded under
Pro’s plan, then who is to say that the programs I specified won’t be defunded?

Finally, my opponent mentions the rule of law. Weigh this against
the constitutional violations I already pointed out and the dropped contentions
concerning the economy and overburdened immigration system.

Conclusion

My opponent conceded 2/3 of my case which proved economic and
humanitarian concerns for both citizens and illegal immigrants alike. I turned
both of his arguments concerning crime, showing that crime increases by defunding
sanctuary cities, and that Pro’s position would punish cities that haven’t broken
the law due to his broad definition of what a sanctuary city is. Vote Con to prevent
legal citizens from being deported and to not burden the states with budget
cuts and contracted economic growth.

Maybe this is true, but so is the Pro position because it forces localities to enforce federal requests from ICE.

Not forcing, coaxing. Nowhere did I state that defunding sanctuary cities means forcing them to comply..

Restricting certain requests that ICE sends to localities is a protection of fundamental liberties promised by the Bill of Rights. Multiple SCOTUS precedents establish that illegal immigrants are due 4th and 5th amendment rights known as “due process” (2). It is noted in the Plyer v. Doe majority opinion that:

“Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (2).

Yes, I agree that there is an amendment that gives illegal immigrants due process rights, but again that doesn't mean they have full Constitutional rights. See my comment below in response to "Legal Obligation"

Crime

Most of his citations only include serious crimes being committed by illegal immigrants with no mention of sanctuary cities protecting them from punishment. Pro even mentions that onlysomeof the crime he listed took place in sanctuary cities. This point is in desperate need of a link stronger than a jumble of anecdotes recounting admittedly tragic events.

And yet I provided links with proof that illegal immigrants committed crimes in sanctuary cities. Isn't that enough? The voters will decide.

"Jumbled?" They were listed in order with links.

"recounting admittedly tragic events." Again, as stated in my first argument these "tragic events" would not have occurred if federal immigration laws were enforced

I respectfully disagree with this statement. I believe the sources I have stated in my previous arguments prove this statement incorrect.

Tom Wong, Professor at the University of California wrote for the Center for American Progress and found on average, controlling for population characteristics such as income, sanctuary cities had 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties (11).

"Consider the Source." The source(11) my opponent used was the "Center For American Progress." The Center for American Progress's board of director's reads like a Who's Who of Democrat politicians and Lay People. A very biased source by the political Left, which is predominately in favor of sanctuary cities.

This can be attributed to increased crime-reporting because of the increased trust between aliens and police. The Department of Urban Planning and Policy in Chicago found that communities that increased police involvement in immigration enforcement reduced legal and illegal immigrant’s desire to report crime. Out of the 4 cities studied, (Phoenix, Los Angeles, Houston, and Chicago,) over 60% of illegal immigrants reported that they were less likely to report crimes (12). Notably, increased fear of deportation wasn’t confined to illegal immigrants. Half of foreign-born immigrants and nearly 30% of US born Latinos reported increased fear of contacting the police about crimes that were committed (12). Using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey after the 1986 amnesty provision passed in the US, researchers at the Institute of Labor Economics found that the reporting rate of illegal immigrants was 11.2% (13). After amnesty was passed, the reporting rate of recently legalized immigrants jumped by about 20% (13). By reducing the threat of deportation, we can expect to see similar results. Conversely, by punishing entities that declare sanctuary status, we only put more people in danger. People who go unreported for their misdeeds are not incentivized to stop committing crime, creating repeat offenders.

Also, pro’s plan would suspend funding from sanctuary cities, which includes federal funds that would help police agencies. While it’ hard to quantify what funding would be rescinded after the passage of the resolution, Forbes reports that at least $21.5 billion dollars which funds schools, police agencies, and firefighters would be classified as federal funding and halted under my opponent’s plan (14). Training, hiring, and outfitting police officers is expensive. There needs to be a system that prevents police agencies from going belly up. Otherwise, crime increases dramatically. The Economic Policy Institute in 2011 measured the impact of police lay-offs in New Jersey cities and across the 5 cities studied in New Jersey, it was estimated that layoffs would cause 34 more murders, 527 more robberies, and 9 more forcible rapes (15).

The comparison Pro made is insufficient in proving that aliens pose a terrorist threat of any kind.

I disagree with this statement. I believe I provided enough facts in my first argument that prove the opposite of this statement.

My opponent again likes to use broad brush all-encompassing statements, like the one above, "pose a terrorist threat of any kind." It takes one coordinated mass terrorist attack to cause massive damage and casualties as we know from September 11, 2001.

Legal Obligation

Pro cites two pieces of evidence to prove his point that the US has a legal obligation to defund sanctuary cities. He cites a 10th circuit victory and the “take care” clause of the constitution.

The 10th circuit victory doesn’t prove that the resolution should be passed, only that such an action wouldn’t violate the constitution. It isn’t unconstitutional to stick gum under a desk. It could land the vandalizer in hot water with police officers, but the constitution never explicitly prevents someone from committing the deed. Additionally, cross-apply both of my federal court-cases that deemed not honoring detainer requests constitutional.

Now to defend my case.

Framework

My opponent suggests that constitutional protections for illegal immigrants do not exist. This is patently false. Cross-apply my Plyer v. Doe evidence which suggests that aliens have the right of due process.

I did say that there were no constitutional protections to illegal immigrants. I am well aware of the "due process right."

Here is what I said verbatim from Argument 2...

I don't dispute this, but I would add that illegal immigrants are not afforded the full rights under the Constitution, which are rights derived by and for the Citizenry (i.e "We the People of the United States").

Notice the word "full." The reason I said that was because I new there was a due process amendment right for illegals, but chose not to give my opponent any help.

Con has grossly misrepresented my position here! I ask the voters to consider this when casting their vote

He also takes issue with my use of the word “tangible” to describe what Pro needs to demonstrate. I only ask that Pro demonstrate the real-world benefits of defunding sanctuary cities.

I did. Please look at my arguments more closely instead of misrepresenting what my position is like you did with due process amendment.

Finally, he suggests that me asking him to show that his position doesn’t dehumanize illegal immigrants is abusive. I am not requiring that he provide defensive argumentation to address the humanitarian issues associated with defunding sanctuary cities. However, considering the constitutional precedents, it would be remiss to not consider the wellbeing of the illegal immigrants who would undoubtedly be affected. Weigh these impacts in the debate.

That's fine, but I still feel that it is not a burden I need to prove for my side of the debate. If my opponent wants to carry that burden for their side of the debate, feel free.

Suspending Funding Harms Citizens

Pro tries to backtrack by alluding to the possibility that not all funds would be suspended under the passage of the resolution. His definition of “defund” offered at the beginning of his case would suggest otherwise. He requires that funding not only be withdrawn, but that existing grants be suspended, such as the COPS program which works with municipalities. His chance to explain what kind of funding would be affected has long passed as it is now the final round. Because I am restricted from responding further after this round is completed, I implore the judges to punish any last-minute plans that were not previously discussed by Pro in R1.

He also asks that I provide proof that all funds would be ended. Since his position requires that all funds should be suspended, and there was no previous plan-making that would only require some funds to be suspended, it can be rationally assumed that Pro’s plan would restrict all funding.

Again my opponent did not clearly read my arguments. In the First argument I stated:

For purposes of this debate topic, I felt it necessary to insert "or withhold" to the definition. The reason why I inserted "or withhold" is that the whole debate and narrative of the U.S. Government defunding sanctuary cities not only includes the defunding of specific federal funds but also the withholding of certain federal grants. If need be I will elaborate further in the arguments.

Notice the "If need be I will elaborate further in the arguments." And this is exactly what I did in Argument 2 where I clarified my "elaboration" in my Final Remarks.

Let me explain, the definition of "Defund" does not state"to withdraw ALL funding from." I knew going into this debate that this might pop up as an issue and that is why I was a bit ambiguous in my definitions and left an "Out". It was a bit of debate strategy.

At any rate, I realize the Con's side rests heavily on the meaning of defund being ALL federal funds. Did my strategy work? I leave it to the Voters.

My opponent wants more examples of harms of taking away federal funds because I only mention 1 program. I mention that the funding aids schools, the homeless, and law enforcement. Here are some more funds that would be cut according to the CNN evidence I provided beforehand.

In Seattle: “The Transportation Department is due more than $63 million in capital funds for maintenance, bridge replacements, seismic retrofits, and bike and pedestrian path improvements.”

In Chicago: “Also in danger are $100 million to fight homelessness and maintain affordable housing, $178 million for infrastructure, and $861 million for the Chicago Public Schools.”

“Police could lose $9.6 million from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant.”

The evidence suggests that in sanctuary cities, everything from infrastructure to education could be affected. This impacts everyone who uses roads, goes to school, or is protected by the police. Hence: “everyone who inhabits a sanctuary city is harmed” is an accurate statement.

Also, whether a city flips to become a non-sanctuary city depends largely on the city in question. For example, Chicago is prepared for lengthy legal proceedings that could last months or years. In the meantime, cities would face budget contractions.

The above is irrelevant because I am not arguing that all federal funds will be defunded from sanctuary cities. Furthermore, it would be very difficult to formulate a true damage estimate on infrastructure from a micro level, never mind the near impossibility of formulating damage to infrastructure, both tangible and non-tangible, in macro form!

Overburdened Immigration System

Fine, for the rest of the post I won’t use “Pro’s world.” Other than that, my opponent essentially drops this point. He offers a metaphor comparing the affirmative position to chemotherapy to treat cancer. I disagree. This resolution is akin to prescribing cigarettes to a patient with lung cancer. If we want to talk about “fixing the immigration system,” (whatever that means,) then we could argue other, more tenable positions.

I did say maybe it wasn't the best analogy. It was just a way to get a point across.

As it stands, he never refuted my claims suggesting that legal citizens would be deported, the inordinate cost of detention, or the lack of appropriate legal defense for people detained. Extend these points.

I didn't feel like I needed to.

Economic Benefits

This point boils down to another concession. Regardless of whether an illegal immigrant has domestic tranquility, the people within sanctuary cities would also lose jobs according to my 15th source in my constructive if defunding occurs and cities rescind their sanctuary status.

Conceded? I conceded nowhere? Not sure why my opponent calls this a concession. I think I mentioned that some small benefit might occur from illegal immigrants working, but at the end of the day I felt it was overridden by the Constitutional position of Justice and Domestic tranquility

Opponent’s final remarks

I would like to reiterate that my opponent never mentioned that some federal funds would still flow to sanctuary cities until now. His definition provided at the beginning and lack of plan on how the disbursement of funds would be handled means that it is too late to consider this a valid point.

I'm not sure what my opponent is referring to here? If it is the city of Chicago's litigation, I was just saying that was the only specific defunding attempt that my opponent addressed. A small acknowledgment to them is a way of displaying good debate etiquette, not a concession.

Even if it was, what exactly wouldn’t be defunded? He never mentions what should be defunded at all in the debate.

This was not a burden I felt I needed to prove to win the debate. The voters will decide.

If Pro wanted to run a plan, he needed to have specified every aspect of what he intended to do.

Otherwise, the judge and I will wonder exactly what would happen with sanctuary city funding. Also, if there are no specifics as to what would be defunded under Pro’s plan, then who is to say that the programs I specified won’t be defunded?

Again, I provided proof through facts, reason, and common sense that the U.S. Government should defund sanctuary cities. Maybe my opponent doesn't like the way I did it. Perhaps it doesn't fit is their "Plan." I don't know. What I do know is that I proved my side of the debate successfully.

Finally, my opponent mentions the rule of law. Weigh this against the constitutional violations I already pointed out and the dropped contentions concerning the economy and overburdened immigration system.

Appeal to Voters

My opponent's arguments rest so heavily on the incorrect assumption that the word "Defund" means "the defunding of All Funds." I believe I have shown that this is not conclusively true. Therefore the voters should Vote Pro.

To Con

Thanks to my esteemed and kind Opponent for this excellent debate. I look forward to more debates with them in the future!

Cool. Thanks. You're not bad. After the debate, since you asked, I'll offer some advice to make your case a bit stronger. Nothing major, but just a few things. Sorry my response was so long. I had to rebut and defend in the same post.

As a reminder, don't add any more refutations your next round. I can't respond to them. You can defend your positions from my refutations and make your final reminder to the judges why they should vote for you.